News: Cowboys restructure Fredrick's and Tyron's contracts

[Toruk_Makto]

You mean we can start tracking Jerry's plane again?

I've applied to be an air traffic controller.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

The Present Day Value of money alone makes it smart bookkeeping regardless of players signed or not signed......it is taking on debt to expand with an interest free loan......smart use of resources

You're conflating sciences. Present day value. Ha. As if unused cap space compounds. Stahp it.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

you keep adding the line about not signing anyone......the whole point is to sign more players that will help...... if he had a better DE, MLB or TE2 we might have beat GB last year..... it was that close

If we had signed Peppers in 2014 instead of GB we might have won that game

We didn't forgo signing players last offseason because we forgot to restructure Dez. LOL

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're conflating sciences. Present day value. Ha. As if unused cap space compounds. Stahp it.

Cap space is zero sum. For every dead dollar you move forward, you get space that year. If it is not spent then it is neutral in accounting even if it accelerates because the max amount that can accelerate is equal to the amount you get in free space that is transferable from year to year.

The only risk is that you spend the freed up space and then have a player get hurt or otherwise have his cap hit accelerate. That is what bit us in the late 90s when Deion, Troy, and Irvin all left or retired in a very short window.

Dez is only 28 and has had no degenerative injuries so that is unlikely; his contract is already guaranteed this season. Further without Romo on the roster we are going to free up $47m over the next three years.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Cap space is zero sum. For every dead dollar you move forward, you get space that year. If it is not spent then it is neutral in accounting even if it accelerates because the max amount that can accelerate is equal to the amount you get in free space that is transferable from year to year.

The only risk is that you spend the freed up space and then have a player get hurt or otherwise have his cap hit accelerate. That is what bit us in the late 90s when Deion, Troy, and Irvin all left or retired in a very short window.

Dez is only 28 and has had no degenerative injuries so that is unlikely; his contract is already guaranteed this season. Further without Romo on the roster we are going to free up $47m over the next three years.

Everyone knows we are about to have a ton of cap space. That isn't hte question.

The issue is whether you should restructure a contract even when you don't plan to use that cap space. The answe ris no as not doing that preserves flexibility.

This is quite simple.

 

[Nightman]

You're conflating sciences. Present day value. Ha. As if unused cap space compounds. Stahp it.

These are real numbers, not a magic trick

In 2013 the cap was 123m
In 2017 the cap was 168m

2013......123m.......10m= 8.1%
2014......133m.......10m= 7.5%
2015......143.3m....10m= 6.9%
2016......155.3m....10m= 6.4%
2017......168m.......10m= 5.9%

8.1% of the 168m cap is 13.6m.......that same 10m is worth 27% less....plus you got use of the player you bought in 2013 for 5 seasons before he had to be paid off

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Everyone knows we are about to have a ton of cap space. That isn't hte question.

The issue is whether you should restructure a contract even when you don't plan to use that cap space. The answe ris no as not doing that preserves flexibility.

This is quite simple.

There is more flexibility if you restructure. Your way you can only use the space in the future. Our way you can use the space now or later.

Again the cap space rolls over to the following year if you don't use it. You're acting like we use it or lose it or it depreciates when in fact it operates opposite to that.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

These are real numbers, not a magic trick

In 2013 the cap was 123m
In 2017 the cap was 168m

2013......123m.......10m= 8.1%
2014......133m.......10m= 7.5%
2015......143.3m....10m= 6.9%
2016......155.3m....10m= 6.4%
2017......168m.......10m= 5.9%

8.1% of the 168m cap is 13.6m.......that same 10m is worth 27% less....plus you got use of the player you bought in 2013 for 5 seasons before he had to be paid off

I know this remedial math. In fact you've liked posts of mine talking about the value of restructing contracts.

Your thought that every player should be blindly restructured ignores so much and I've tried to explain that silliness over and over again.

And this is your response? Who do you think you're talking to?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

There is more flexibility if you restructure. Your way you can only use the space in the future. Our way you can use the space now or later.

Again the cap space rolls over to the following year if you don't use it. You're acting like we use it or lose it or it depreciates when in fact it operates opposite to that.

You assume the Cowboys need space they want to use now but forgot they can restructure players.... You know the Cowboys... One of the most aggressive users of the strategy. What an asinine thought.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You assume the Cowboys need space they want to use now but forgot they can restructure players.... You know the Cowboys... One of the most aggressive users of the strategy. What an asinine thought.

What are you talking about?

You're just moving the goalposts around at this point. You said flexibility. I responded that there are more options if you restructure and you come back with this?

All teams restructure deals but the Cowboys are more cash rich then most and are way way in the black so they can afford to pay out large sums year after year after year. It's called utilizing an advantage.

The point I was making about having a lot of space coming free is that it alleviates the risk if we are forced to accelerate someone like Dez or Tyron's dead money.

Also we have very little dead money from players that are not on the team. That used to be a big issue: paying for players on the cap that were no longer on the team.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

What are you talking about?

You're just moving the goalposts around at this point. You said flexibility. I responded that there are more options if you restructure and you come back with this?

All teams restructure deals but the Cowboys are more cash rich then most and are way way in the black so they can afford to pay out large sums year after year after year. It's called utilizing an advantage.

The point I was making about having a lot of space coming free is that it alleviates the risk if we are forced to accelerate someone like Dez or Tyron's dead money.

Also we have very little dead money from players that are not on the team. That used to be a big issue: paying for players on the cap that were no longer on the team.

I said the team has perfect flexibility without restructuring contracts up until the moment they need to restructure. It makes no sense to not need the space (i.e. because for whatever reason you're not handing out a free agent contract and/or signing/extending your own guys) and restructure to carry space forward. All you do is more closely tie yourself to players in a league that stands for Not For Long.

It's an incredibly silly idea.

If the Cowboys want to go out and sign JPP and need space...they'll restructure Dez. If they don't need the space...they won't...because doing so is stupid. And it's why you see no teams restructuring just to restructure.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I said the team has perfect flexibility without restructuring contracts up until the moment they need to restructure. It makes no sense to not need the space (i.e. because for whatever reason you're not handing out a free agent contract and/or signing/extending your own guys) and restructure to carry space forward. All you do is more closely tie yourself to players in a league that stands for Not For Long.

It's an incredibly silly idea.

If the Cowboys want to go out and sign JPP and need space...they'll restructure Dez. If they don't need the space...they won't...because doing so is stupid. And it's why you see no teams restructuring just to restructure.

And we are telling you it makes no difference. Exactly how is there more flexibility?

Fact is that if you restructure the money is available from that moment onward. It transfers each year dollar for dollar.

You seem to be getting upset because you are using pejoratives in place of real argument. There is no harm whatsoever in restructuring. The only danger is spending that money and having the player you restructured accelerate his deal and not having any additional cap room.

The Cowboys have restructuring automatically built into their contracts. That is something you claimed no one did.

Also you are making claims about what other teams do which you have not substantiated. I doubt very seriously you are primed on what all 32 teams do with their contracts.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

And we are telling you it makes no difference. Exactly how is there more flexibility?

Of course it makes a difference. @bkight13 is specifically advocating for restructuring contracts to go out and acquire players. And he thinks we should do it for every single player that has guaranteed money. This limits your flexibility because it ties you to said player.

Fact is that if you restructure the money is available from that moment onward. It transfers each year dollar for dollar.

Teams restructure to create needed space. That means that the money is no longer available "dollar for dollar."

You seem to be getting upset because you are using pejoratives in place of real argument. There is no harm whatsoever in restructuring.

You're speaking in absolutes...and contradicting yourself. You even gave an example of this team in the 90s where dead money materially impacted the team due to lack of cap foresight.

The only danger is spending that money and having the player you restructured accelerate his deal and not having any additional cap room.

So there is no harm and then you warn of danger...

The Cowboys have restructuring automatically built into their contracts. That is something you claimed no one did.

The Cowboys have the idea of restructuring built into some of their contracts. Not all. And the reason they don't have them built into all of them should be self evident.

Also you are making claims about what other teams do which you have not substantiated. I doubt very seriously you are primed on what all 32 teams do with their contracts.

I know that I follow the leauge and i've never heard this crazy idea of restructuring contracts just to carry money forward....for the fun of it...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Of course it makes a difference. @bkight13 is specifically advocating for restructuring contracts to go out and acquire players. And he thinks we should do it for every single player that has guaranteed money. This limits your flexibility because it ties you to said player.



Teams restructure to create needed space. That means that the money is no longer available "dollar for dollar."



You're speaking in absolutes...and contradicting yourself. You even gave an example of this team in the 90s where dead money materially impacted the team due to lack of cap foresight.



So there is no harm and then you warn of danger...



The Cowboys have the idea of restructuring built into some of their contracts. Not all. And the reason they don't have them built into all of them should be self evident.



I know that I follow the leauge and i've never heard this crazy idea of restructuring contracts just to carry money forward....for the fun of it...

If you don't spend the money it does not tie you to anything. If you restructure $50m then that is all that accelerates. No more, no less. If you don't spend it then when it accelerates then it is offset dollar for dollar by the cap money that is carried forward when you cut the player in question.

There is no harm in restructuring in and of itself. You do understand that restructuring and signing players are two different actions right? And regardless let me know when we start restructuring players that are similar to Aikman and Irvin at the end of their position's life expectancy.

Whether or not the have the automatic provisions in all their contracts is besides the point. The point is they restructure systemically without any intent that you insist has to exist.

And you never having heard of something does not mean that it does not happen. You cannot speak for the 32 teams of the NFL.

 

[AsthmaField]

Without reading this whole thread, the most vital piece of information when it comes to Dallas restructuring contracts - it seems to me - would be who exactly they are restructuring.

The players they choose to restructure are almost universally considered to be self motivated, young, relatively injury free players who the team wants to be a long term, cornerstone pieces in their franchise build.

It isn't done willy-nilly and who they choose seems to be carefully picked.

I am perfectly fine with pushing some of their money forward. Someone like Sean Lee or T McClain would worry me because of past injury histories, although they are the RKG's. Doug Free? Nope. He's nearing the end and you don't want to push money forward on a guy like that.

So yeah, I'm good with Smith and Frederick. I'll be fine with Martin when the time comes. Dak will likely be another that I'm good with.

Speaking for myself... I agree with how the team is currently doing it. Before 2010? I wanted to shoot someone in the front office.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

If you don't spend the money it does not tie you to anything. If you restructure $50m then that is all that accelerates. No more, no less. If you don't spend it then when it accelerates then it is offset dollar for dollar by the cap money that is carried forward when you cut the player in question.

There is no harm in restructuring in and of itself. You do understand that restructuring and signing players are two different actions right? And regardless let me know when we start restructuring players that are similar to Aikman and Irvin at the end of their position's life expectancy.

Whether or not the have the automatic provisions in all their contracts is besides the point. The point is they restructure systemically without any intent that you insist has to exist.

And you never having heard of something does not mean that it does not happen. You cannot speak for the 32 teams of the NFL.

Your assertion of creating cap space to just sit on it and how it therefore doesn't impact the cap just doesn't make sense.

Who creates all this cap space with restructures to not spend the created cap space?

We've done two restructures in Tyron and Fredrick and the money was ALREADY spent in getting under the cap.

Restructuring just cuz is a stupid notion. Don't be stupid.

 

[Stash]

No, it doesn't. If you don't use the space then it transfers to the following year which would offset the extra dead money.

People don't consider the money that we rolled over this year when complain about player X's cap hit but it counts just the same.

And if you do use the space - always for something else - it's not rolled over. And that ability to absorb the dead money hit isn't either. You stole from Peter to pay Paul.

And then you're left debating just how much Tyron Crawford is grossly overpaid.

 

[Stash]

Without reading this whole thread, the most vital piece of information when it comes to Dallas restructuring contracts - it seems to me - would be who exactly they are restructuring.

The players they choose to restructure are almost universally considered to be self motivated, young, relatively injury free players who the team wants to be a long term, cornerstone pieces in their franchise build.

It isn't done willy-nilly and who they choose seems to be carefully picked.

I am perfectly fine with pushing some of their money forward. Someone like Sean Lee or T McClain would worry me because of past injury histories, although they are the RKG's. Doug Free? Nope. He's nearing the end and you don't want to push money forward on a guy like that.

So yeah, I'm good with Smith and Frederick. I'll be fine with Martin when the time comes. Dak will likely be another that I'm good with.

Speaking for myself... I agree with how the team is currently doing it. Before 2010? I wanted to shoot someone in the front office.

And they've reworked a contract they now regret, Tyrone Crawford. They thought that, like Tyron Smith and Fredrick, he was a cornerstone player for the team, and they were wrong. But now, thanks to restructures, they're stuck paying $7 million plus in salary for a guy who's been replaced at 3T and whom they want to replace at DE if they possibly can.

But that's the guy that these guys will try to defend to the hilt because his situation specifically shows the flaw in their 'just restructure baby'! Argument. They'll try to defend a grossly overpaid player without a true position, rather than admitting that 'creative accounting' blew up in the team's face.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your assertion of creating cap space to just sit on it and how it therefore doesn't impact the cap just doesn't make sense.

Who creates all this cap space with restructures to not spend the created cap space?

We've done two restructures in Tyron and Fredrick and the money was ALREADY spent in getting under the cap.

Restructuring just cuz is a stupid notion. Don't be stupid.

As I said in the beginning, it's about the ability to seize the day if opportunity arises. Timing can be a factor in any negotiated deal. Of course you should not spend more than your budget and projections allow.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to say that you are talking about using the space while I clearly was not and just move on. Last night you seemed to struggle with what that distinction was so don't talk to me of stupid notions.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And if you do use the space - always for something else - it's not rolled over. And that ability to absorb the dead money hit isn't either. You stole from Peter to pay Paul.

And then you're left debating just how much Tyron Crawford is grossly overpaid.

You're left with that. It was boring to me the day you started insisting on it.